Join our Newsletter
If you like The NakedJournal, you'll enjoy my weekly newsletter about deconstruction, freedom, and life in general.
Tony Jones on Mark Driscoll: What came first, the thug or the theology?
This drawing is inspired by the Ouroboros Snake... of the snake eating its own tail.
What came first? The chicken or the egg? What came first? The thug or the theology? I read Tony Jones' thoughts on Mark Driscoll.
Jones has always admired Driscoll, maybe envies him a little, wants the best for him, believes he can be redeemed, and suggests that things can be restored.
What I found most interesting though is that Jones believes the problem with Driscoll is theological.
- He titles his post is "Thoughts about Mark Driscoll"
- He talks about the "heady" days of publishing and speaking.
- He dismisses his disturbing personality traits by his use of the word "sure".
- He says it isn't a moral issue (evil) but that he is passionate.
- He says more than once that Driscoll is "extremely smart" or "brilliant".
- He suggests that he will "see" (as in "think"?) his way out of this.
- He writes that Driscoll has just embraced a toxic version of theology.
- He hopes that Driscoll will turn away from this toxic theology.
- He concludes therefore that Driscoll is not the problem, but his theology.
But my question is‚ What came first? The thug or the theology?
That is, did Driscoll become the focus of concern because of his theology? Or was it because of his behavior?
I'm concerned that Jones' post reflects the refusal of the church to understand spiritual abuse. It neglects the pathology of its abusive leaders. I don't think this is being fair to the victims or the perpetrators of spiritual abuse. People are victims of not just a bad theology, but a pathological cruelty.
I don't think Driscoll's theology made this happen. Driscoll "embraced" his toxic version of theology because it aligned with his moral compass. It fit his personality. It worked for him to achieve his goals. Then it manifested the worst in him. Then he continued to develop his toxic theology in order to make more room for his pathological behavior. Mars Hill Church too.
Jones' sentence, "It could have happened to any of us." is true, because I believe we all participate in this dynamic. Theology is our creation. It is a reflection of our drives and desires.
Then, not satisfied to only be the product of our drives and desires, it also becomes the producer of them. Theology is a vicious cycle of our desperate need to understand and control our universe.
Step into this cycle at any point and you can see that we are both the root and fruit of our theology and pathology.
And yes, it spins out of control by manifesting itself in toxic, controlling, and abusive behavior. Nothing can be done about bad theology because of free thought and speech.
But we can do something when this manifests itself in bad behavior. Cruel theology is a nuisance. Cruel behavior is unacceptable.
When Driscoll thinks bully to his people, we can say please stop. But when he actually bullies people, we can step in and say you will stop now!
I don't think this is a theological issue. I think it is a pathological one. Not just for Driscoll and Jones, but for the entire church.
If we would be healed, our theology would take care of itself.
1079 comments
Having been linked to this a few times through SCCL, I finally caught up and read most of it. Julie, I am so glad that you found a safe place to share your story. It is very clear to me that you are not lying. I am sorry that people keep implying that… As someone that dealt with a liar in the past, a liar would not come to a thread like this and share their fake story just for apologies. Liars lie to GET THEIR WAY, and then disappear from those people’s lives. You are telling the truth, and I believe in the power of the internet to continue to expose abuse, lies, and violence. Thanks for sharing!
to Julie and all of the others who have been raw and honest on this thread, I thank you. I have dealt with NPD in my family of origin and it is still devastating – to the point that I won’t use my name hear. We are still dealing with too much. I haven’t had time to read through all of this, but have been hearing about it for weeks. I don’t know you Julie, but I heard the exact term “bat-shit crazy” in reference to you from at least 3 of the men in emergent. When I read that recent comment, I was amazed, as I’ve never heard that term in reference to another person, but I heard it about you. I’m so sorry. Wow, now that I think back, it was horrible, but since I wasn’t involved, it just made me not respect the people who said it, but I didn’t speak up. I was not part of emergent over the long haul, but I am close friends with many who were, and the women have many stories to tell of how badly they were treated. Most will say ‘the boys’ at the center spoke as if they were theologically egalitarian, but acted no better than the evangelical men these women had been dealing with in their churches. Women were degraded, told they were too emotional, and only used to speak on panels if they were praising the men. They weren’t seeking to publish women. Tony and Doug finally put a lot of women on stage when they started JOPA and knew women would make them money. Many women heard form Tony for years “there just aren’t the women theologians doing the work” for why we don’t have them speaking. but as soon as they had a for profit conference business, they put a majority of women on the stage for the first time!! I seriously doubt there was any organized conspiracy. With the male culture the way it is, all you have to do is drop a few phrases, and the woman is immediately discredited. Women continue the pattern if they are the token woman who has ‘gotten in.’
This is definitely a cultural issue in the US evangelical church (it’s been a horrible place for women), and the emergent boys brought it with them as they left their evangelical posts. Brian McLaren was an exception, and when many women speak of their experience, and they say he was the one who fought to bring the women into leadership and on the Board. In all of our conversations about this, he came up as the one who was always supportive, but not willing to take on the conflict with the culture. I’m sorry for your experience.
And NPD is is part of the evangelical ‘charismatic men on stage’ industrial complex. so true!! from what i’ve learned from the history, the acts 29 thread, and the emergent thread both were part of the young leaders network, and were all together until they split – primarily over the issue of women in leadership. Both were the cussing, smoking, young evangelical men who were going to lead the change in the church and be known in 500 years as the reformers. One friend said “until they realized they each wanted to be THE ONE.”
And yes, and NPD diagnosis is extremely rare, and should be taken seriously. Tony’s reputation with many is as an extreme narcissist anyway. so sorry for your pain. and this really needs to be dealt with in Christian circles for the sake of our sons and our daughters. I don’t want my children anywhere near these types.
Bill, thanks so much for link, situation writ large and stark.
“The lies that were perpetuated in my case could be said to be the result of my ex getting an idea started and then simply letting the natural propensity for people to gossip, to draw their own conclusions, to never actually call me or talk to me and ask me if I’m okay and what is going on and instead just take other people’s word-on-the-street as gospel, etc etc. It is actually not very hard to perpetuate character defamation… we see it all the time in politics. All it takes is for someone to start a rumor and then never do a thing to correct it or stop it and in fact to foster it wherever it serves the purpose it was started for.”
I call this the poisonous seed planting tactic. It works. It is often done in a whispering campaign that is impossible to trace. Evil is best described as deception. Evil does not come to us with a pitchfork and cup of poison to drink. It hides behind position, charm,. manufactured credibility, etc.
I have seen first hand people ruined under the “guise” of helping them: She needs help. She is emotionally unstable and won’t accept our help. We really care about her.
And the next thing the poor woman knows is that everyone is avoiding her like crazy and she has no idea why. People are not asking her what happened and they don’t even want her side of anything because the one with position and power spoke.
Now, If she shows any emotion in public (anger, sadness, etc) it only affirms the “emotionally unstable” remark. The poison seed sprouted and it was planted under the guise of “love”.
Yeah, it is evil all right. And I saw it all the time in the evangelical industrial complex. It is in the playbook.
TY Bill. We all need eachother to abide where it’s really real… You have been a that kind of friend to me.